Tvl.Bernard Karuthudaiyan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. BERNARD KARUTHUDAIYAN, failed to file their GST returns for November 2024. The respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Nagercoil, issued a GSTR 3A notice and subsequently passed an assessment order under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, on January 20, 2025. The petitioner then filed their returns belatedly on August 18, 2025. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order, contending it was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the assessment order was passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court held that the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is deemed to have been withdrawn upon the filing of a belated return by the registered person, in accordance with Section 62(2) of the Act. The Court reasoned that while Section 62(1) allows the proper officer to proceed with best judgment assessment for non-filers, Section 62(2) provides for the withdrawal of such an assessment order if a valid return is furnished within thirty days of the service of the assessment order. The Court acknowledged that while the statute prescribes a time limit, judicial pronouncements have held this time limit not to be mandatory. Therefore, applying the statutory mandate of Section 62(2), the impugned order stands automatically withdrawn. The Court directed that it is open to the respondent to verify the returns filed by the petitioner and, if there is any short payment, to issue a fresh show cause notice. Any amount already collected from the petitioner is to be adjusted against future liabilities, and the attachment on the petitioner's bank account is to be lifted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction. They also contended that once a belated return is filed, the assessment order under Section 62(1) is deemed to have been withdrawn as per Section 62(2) of the Act, irrespective of whether the return was filed within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner relied on the principle that courts have held the time limit for filing late returns not to be mandatory. Respondent's Contention: The respondent did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions. The judgment notes that the respondent was heard, but their arguments are not detailed.
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 39, Section 45, Section 46, Section 44, Section 50, Section 47
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard both sides. 2.The writ petitioner is an assessee coming under the juri iction of the respondent. The petitioner failed to file their returns for the month of November 2024. Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 reads as follows:- “62.Assessment
of non-filers
of returns. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 73 or section 74, where a registered person fails to furnish the return under section 39 or section 45, even after the service of a notice under section 46, the proper officer may proceed to assess the tax liability of the said person to the best of his judgment taking into account all the relevant material which is available or which he has gathered and issue an assessment order within a period of five years from the date specified under section 44 for furnishing of the annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid relates. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (2) Where the registered person furnishes a valid return within thirty days of the service of the assessment order under sub-section (1), the said assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn but the liability for payment of interest under sub-section (1) of section 50 or for payment of late fee under section 47 shall continue.” Invoking the said provision, GSTR 3A notice was issued. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 20.01.2025. Whileso, the petitioner herein filed their returns belatedly on 18.08.2025. Though the statute prescribes time limit of 60 days for filing the late returns, Courts have held that this time limit is not mandatory. Once the late return has been filed, the order making best judgement assessment is deemed to have been withdrawn. Applying the statutory mandate set out in Section 62(2) of the Act, it is declared that the impugned order stands automatically withdrawn. It is open to the respondent herein to verify the returns filed by the writ petitioner. If there is any short-payment, fresh show cause notice can be issued making appropriate demand from the assessee. The amount already collected from the writ petitioner shall be adjusted against the petitioner's future liabilities. The attachment made on the writ petitioner's bank account shall stand lifted automatically. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With the aforesaid liberty to the respondent, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 Nagercoil - Rural Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Buildings Nagercoil. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias
2025 (3/4) 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.